Mark_83 wrote:The-Power wrote:As a general rule: if someone gets as many guys wrong as they get right, I feel like bragging rights should be limited. That's why I'm not in the business of telling people ‘I told you so’ or calling GMs incompetent.
I'm not sure if I agree. What constitutes a miss? Even professional front offices have draft boards, right? Let's say a team puts together a list of the 30 best players in the draft, is every one of the players that doesn't become an NBA player a miss for the front office or do we only count the pick they actually make? In 2013 when Milwaukee picked Giannis at 15th, would it make a difference in how we evaluate their front office if we knew he was rated 10th on their overall board instead of #1? Would that just be a miss that they lucked out on?
It's a crucial difference that unlike NBA teams, we are privy to everyone's draftboard on here where we can see the dubious rankings in retrospect. We don't have access to that info for NBA teams. If we did we might think having as many misses as hits (I.e., 50/50) would be a pretty good batting average imo.
You can compare your results with the NBA as a whole. If your big board is more similar to retracts 5-10 years latter you outperformed the NBAas a whole and thus the "average" gm.
Of course it would make a difference if the Bucks had Giannis 1 vs 10 vs 15 on their board.
Now Philly could have had Giannis #5 on their board but didn't end up with him, so w e don't judge Philly on Giannis wejudgethem on who they picked relative to who was available.
Also grading in this context should be done on a curve